Yes competitive funding results in large amounts of funding being directed towards the researchers with the most spectacular results and there is almost certainly an enrichment of fraudsters in this cohort. Researchers who have promising results that need further work to disentangle multiple variables on the other hand are likely to not get any funding at all. Only 1 in 10 research grants get funded in Australia.
Whenever there’s a whistleblower, especially at Ivy League schools, the University, “investigates” themselves and almost always declares that they did nothing wrong, it’s a joke.
Follow the science they said. Take your 89th boo -ster and get free ice cream. Diabetes sugar inducing ADHD inducing sugar ice cream. Cause sugar is good for you.
STOP all government funding. Before government started funding, due diligence was done before investors gave these researchers money. Now it's just about proposing the approved agendas in order to get money.
I mean. There are humans involved. Thus, you just have bad apples and human error. No matter what it is. Church, work, your local pub... It's the human condition. Just think critically and find the bad apples. Just remember this isn't unique to medical science.
@@ohsweetmystery You have it exactly in REVERSE. For-profit research is... FOR PROFIT, vested interest. You can't have an unbiased research when further funding *depends* on the outcome. That's called *motivated reasoning*, philsophers have identified it as a bias for centuries.
Recently I read about a very senior researcher who published over 800 papers at the rate of roughly two papers each and every week. Of course this is absurd. Most of the papers were garbage generated to keep this researcher's name current, presumably for funding purposes. We've known for years that a surprising amount of published research is false and that many journals are simply money hustles for the publishers, yet despite occasional hand-wringing nothing has changed. Replication is key, yet there is no glamour in doing this very necessary grunt work: no young researcher wants to spend his/her career replicating someone else's work because, professionally, it's the kiss of death. As Mr. Caplan has pointed out, our "news" media are complicit in what amounts to institutionalized fraud, always eager to tout the latest alleged breakthrough to keep their viewers/readers attention (and thereby sell things through advertising). It's a rotten system.
My suspicion, if they're a senior researcher like this is that they're a professor and director of some institute or other. Their senior position is a management position over a wide range of projects that more junior professors are really lead on. The senior man may be the last author, sort of the "executive producer" who helped with funding, facilities, experimental design advice, logistics, whatever. The lead author of course gets first billing, but the last author is that supervising researcher. At really big places (I suspect you're referring to a Harvard researcher here), they have a culture where they encourage their senior professors to do this sort of role and append their names to as many publications as possible to fluff up the numbers of publications and use their institutional brand a bit for some name recognition. They're hardly the only university that does this. This doesn't mean the research is false, only that the author list is grossly inflated and some of the authors really didn't do much to get their names on the publication.
I left academia some times ago because it was all about publishing without substance. Research takes time and effort to mature. If an institute forces their employee to maintain their h-factor and does not value the quality of their research then there is something seriously wrong.
Yeah older generation like doing Field project because that's where the money come,younger generation prefer doing research now because govt give them intensive if they publish something even if it's just miniscule or even don't have impact
This is not bad news… it is actually VERY GOOD NEWS for the integrity of Science and Medicine. And ultimately… for better patient care. Bring it on. Best research will shine
The entire medical system is predicated on a fraudulent practice of treating symptoms wich never addresses the root cause. The medical system will have you falsely believe that “diseases” really exists when in fact they do not. A disease is simply a dis-ease in the body, find what is causing it (eating non human food) and you can reverse and cure everything. When a person outsources their Health to a “Doctor” that will never come to know Health. Doctors only manage disease and are prevented from practicing anything other than allopathy.
It's unclear if this shows there's more fraud (bigger iceberg than thought) or just discovering more of the fraud (digging out the mountain). The reporting isn't very informative. What percentage of papers have being retracted? Were the retracted papers published in the last year (hella concerning), or papers published over the last 20 years?
@@Kian139 humans have been doing this for decades to little avail. I think AI will only change/accelerate how they deceive because at the end of the day, it's about moolah! And the pharma industry is deeply intrenched within the government. I see only changing landscape, not a cleansing one is all. I am sure SOME good will come from it 🤗
Academia is broken as a whole. Doesnt shock me at all, I've had a lot of mates leave Academia due to the insane requirements for publication and directions from wherever the money comes from ... We need to fix it overall, to reduce the pressure on scientists like this.
I was a foreign language professor at NYU for 10 years, plus many years teaching at other foreign and US universities, and that is the reason I became so disillusioned and distraught with the Academia that I left for good in 2007. Knowledge, abilities, experience and work ethic is worth nothing at all anymore. That is why students finish college with a diploma and no knowledge. The Academia is just a money making machine.
There is no such thing as AI, it's just statistics and huge computational power. But if the use of the term AI helps bring light to this topic, this is fair.
@@alebecker12 there's really no need to be pedantic like that, or have any expectation that others somehow know to use certain terms according to _your_ definition of them. Everyone who's been paying attention to the progression of this technology, should be well aware that the term "AI" is an umbrella term for various machine learning algorithms. So there actually _is_ such a thing as AI. You seem to be conflating AI with AGI. But it's not helpful at all for you to be making such a distinction in the first place..
@MM-qp4pd if he thinks like me. He means that AI should not be the decision maker for whatever it was built for due to human error in the data/outside forces that are out of its control. As such it should be used to ease the gathering of information and a human on the other side can verify the authenticity of the data to make decisions going forward.
I completely agree with you, but I suspect that in the future AI will be just as effective in helping scammers. You must always understand that if you have developed a new weapon, it will be used not only for good.
That's what I was going to say, money will destroy everything.
4 месяца назад
@christianzilla Money is just an ai system. It's weights and biases. It's the incentives in the system that determine the redirects. Same would happen without money if everyone traded.
@@dh2032 Negative studies don't mean "patients don't do well". Negative studies are where treatments are shown to not make a significant impact for a certain outcome variable, or a diagnostics or diagnostic parameter didn't perform as well in predicting a certain long-term event.
The problem here is educational institutions benefiting from the work of students and faculty that result in excess pressure to perform. We need to separate research from education.
“ It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (2009) - Marcia Angell MD
@@HUEHUEUHEPony That is an important question. Has there ever been an animal for whom the ideal diet was not exactly the same as the diet with which the animal evolved? Why would anyone believe that artificial food that doesn't exist in nature could be healthy for any animal?
@@Michal_Sobczykbecause artificial doesn’t mean bad, and natural doesn’t mean good. That’s the naturalistic fallacy. What matters are nutrients. Also, what human predecessors used to eat millions of years ago because that was available at the time, isn’t necessarily what our bodies needs or what is best for us. In fact it probably isn’t, because the humans/predecessors had a diametrically different lifestyle than humans today.
Follow the science they said. Take your 89th boo -ster and get free ice cream. Diabetes sugar inducing ADHD inducing sugar ice cream. Cause sugar is good for you.
The problem was that too many lemmings would simply call you a conspiracy theorists for merely questioning the integrity of specific research via appeal to authority. This directly proves them wrong
In his later years my father refused to publish until he had something to publish. The politics wedged him out not much later despite patents and awards. He started university at 16, was teaching at 21. Dual specialist in Embryology and Endocrinology. UCLA, WashU. And, was eventually head of Endocrinology. Its not just in medicine. In engineering as well as many of professions. Same thing. Even in nursing; report each week to now report your each minute.
I am not shocked. Been hearing about this for years now. Reducing corrupt/bogus science due to AI double checking seems like a good thing. I don't care for the reasons why these frauds did come to be(though judges might), but getting rid of them and thereby what remains can be seen as reliable, that i do care about.
This isn't a few people. Academia as a whole, publish or perish is to blame. There's probably maybe dozens who HAVEN'T published rushed papers. And thousands who have. Most problems are results of systemic issues.
@@AvgJane19 Is it though? Tell me, how many cases have been found in compirson to work that has been done over years if not decades by the highest standards? I wouldn't know. I think hardly anyone could know as that is not something statisticly collected as far as i am aware of. When someone puts forth a generalization about a groupe of people i am also always getting a little itchy, my fashist alarms are then usually going off. You used "propably" so you don't know, do you? Have you failed at hire education or are you one of those who always felt like people who know more were looking down on you? No need to tell me or defend yourself here, still if anything of that rings true to you, you may wanna double check your preconceptions. Playing a blame game also does not help us much. Sure someone gets his rocks of by having put someone down, to me it would be enough to know people who did falsify knowingly, that they would be discredited to their peers and those who did not falsify would have hopefuilly learned an important lesson for scientific endevours from then on.
Reminds me of the article published that concluded that consuming dairy has no negative health impacts...when you looked deeper, you found that the research was funded by Danone and Dairy Australia - 2 huge dairy organisations fund research into dairy that concludes dairy is totally healthy. It seems like AI is here to save us from ourselves! AI is basically fact-checking humans.
While you can make AI models to check data, it is far easier to build AI models that will fasisify data (and do it well) and lead to more false research output. So, the problem will get worse. The only solutions is in the insitutions employing researchers. They have to change the way how the rank and grade researchers . Now it is simply: how many papers you have in these journals.
The problem isn´t the funding, really. You need the money for that and companies do it all the time. The bigger problem is, that they can decide if a study get´s published or not. So they of course will publish the one showing their product is fine, while not showing the 20 that say it isn´t.
@@krox477autocracy even with a free market for goods and services is more dangerous than capitalism in a democracy despite the fact that the usa foreign policy has been quite mistake prone starting with ww1. To think that communism, a planned society where the government determines the amount of supply and price is safer than capitalism is to ignore the flop that the Soviet Union, pre ww1 Germany and Russia and Communist Cuba have been. Capitalism, with all its cronies and crooks, still is a much better system of providing products (supply) and setting prices because no government can accurately decipher what demand will be and what is the most efficient way to create supply
It seems that there is corruption everywhere. In every sector. In every industry. It's crazy what people will do for money. I hope A.I. exposes everything everywhere so we can become a healthier society. Mentally and physically.
@@barbthegreat586 While what you're talking about is a big problem, that's not the cause of this. This is medicine for profit, and I think it's clear who blocks transparency and freedom of speech there. Our two ruling parties are both beholden to industry lobbyists. This is what happens when people keep voting for "lesser evils" instead of discarding the terrible two parties entirely.
Can't believe they didn't even touch on the influence of pharmaceutical and device manufacturers. I worked with a woman who committed blatant fraud to quickly enroll her clinical trials. She was literally falsifying inclusion and exclusion criteria. I caught her red handed, but when I reported it to the MD who owned the research company, he accused me of not being a team player. I left that company immediately. The woman who commited the fraud - she's now in research administration in a large local hospital. Whether private research firm or academic medical institution, what lay persons don't appreciate is how much research is driven by pharmaceutical $$$$$. Much of this is also because government funding is hard to come by. But think about it folks, pharmaceuticals want bang for their bucks so, fast enrollment, no adverse events and participants finishing the trial. It's not science, it's business.
The scale of the problem shows its already reached second order effect; researchers beleive what they are taught based on research [which may have been false] and iteratively build on it, and often find themselves too falsifying parts of their research because of course the data doesnt support a false iterative conclusion. Imagine a massive forest, where some of the roots are infected, and we have no idea how that ultimately makes it to the leaves and fruit we depend on.
@@swaggery What about integrity? If a scientist doesn't have integrity, what hope do we have? Are we only left with the scientists who don't have integrity? Because those who do, check out because of their inability to deviate from the truth. You cannot call yourself a scientist, if you are prepared to deviate from the truth, that is the fundamental characteristic of being a scientist, establishing reality, not making up nonsense versions of it. Something definitely needs fixing, because we are already experiencing the catastrophic consequences of science that lacks scientific rigor.
@@duncan.o-vicIt's not the system. It's the people. Look at Communism. A completely different system but the same amount of fraud. They even starved 100-200mio people just to be right.
@DW News Dear DW team, could make an effort to get better at your "background noise". I've noticed that now in a couple of your pieces, that you can hear a lot of "ambient" noises scratching papers, or other noises. You can do better I'm sure!
There are very little incentives to have real quality control. Scientists and institutions are often paid based on how many papers they spit out. Stricter and more severe consequences should be put in place for fraudulent publishers so that they stop and think twice before faking data.
and that's how ppl get successful. more success means, in general, better chances in mating and bringing up children too. and breed that behaviour a while and you get a bunch of fraudsters and tricksters. It's the system we set up. it's frecking us slowly while it's frecking the whole planet too. If you reward fraud, lies and manipulation, that's always what you'll end up with.
Wow! As much as none of this whistleblowing is news to me, I'm shocked over this particular story! I suppose I could understand (maybe) darkening a band that is clearly there but doesn't show up well in print... but creating or eliminating bands??? Unbelievable.
That's a bigger question than I can answer in a comment section. Basically, I think it is good that they are now being questioned by something smarter than they think they are....
@@soundscape26 AI seems ot be doing a good job of informing us. Google is just bloat and trash. I can get informed so much easier with AI. I love learning from these LLMs.
@@Krack2805 I think he meant that you should use treatments that just got passed by FDA for example. You should wait maybe 1-2 years after they get approved before using it to be on the safe side.
@@default3740 The problem is, some patients don't have a couple of years, to wait and see. You are defending the nonsense papers by fraudulent scientists, and limiting the options for patients in need of treatment. There are new medications that are worth the risk, and scientific rigor allows us to correctly evaluate the risk. We don't need a wait and see if the scientists are complete A hole policy, we need a complete A hole scientists get kicked out of the field and lose their assets policy.
@@default3740 No, he meant this : "From inability to let well alone; from too much zeal for the new and contempt for what is old; from putting knowledge before wisdom, science before art, and cleverness before common sense; from treating patients as cases; and from making the cure of the disease more grievous than the endurance of the same, Good Lord, deliver us."
Many of these 'journals' have editorial staff and reviewers that are clearly unqualified. I've seen respiratory & physical therapists, nurses, college lecturers, and social workers listed as peer reviewers in some of these 'journals'. Buyer beware.
@@verypanda1801 Same reason why you wouldn't trust a fast food worker to do brain surgery: the qualifications to do the job successfully are not the same. Nurses are not required to complete a lab technician course, and any studies that involve lab equipment to replicate and confirm findings need to have peers that work in the same field of expertise to verify if something is true or false. Though anyone can get a degree in something and lie anyway for profit, the crossover of different job positions peer-reviewing studies they have little knowledge about is a giveaway that the studies are fraudulent because they can't verify the validity of the information. TLDR: if they lie and verify a study with contents they know nothing about, they shouldn't be allowed to verify studies which they are qualified to verify because they have shown their willingness to lie.
The 10000 quote is not all fraud. In recent times, the medical research community has witnessed a worrying trend in the number of papers retracted due to fraud. In 2022, there were about 2,600 retractions in the medical research area, which was more than twice the number recorded in 2018 . Were do you get your numbers from.
Nobody should be surprised by this. They told us about this in college almost 20 years ago. This concept is also in an anime called "Full Metal Alchemist". Must meet quotas to get funding. Making people desperate to do things. One great way to kill innovation, creativity and science, is to force people to do work that's not really needed or tell them they'll lose their funding for not doing enough. I realized I could be a great scientist but all this extra stuff to be one isn't worth it at all. For now, I am having more fun having a secure job not relevant to my degree, that pays me less than what I should earn and gives me enough time to play around with concepts at my own pace and time. If I can suggest or contribute something at that job that would make it better, I will. However, I am having fun learning math, art, computer science, software engineering, physics, etc. I am searching for something. Some pattern. I have no clue what, when I see it, I'll know.
Just think, AIs are being trained on these papers right now and even if they get discovered and retracted, getting an AI to forget something is nearly impossible. So they're contaminating our knowledge base unless AIs are retrained from scratch without the bad papers. That would be hideously expensive so no one will do it.
You don't have to retrain from scratch with a lot of models right now. You can weed out bad elements in the dataset. The hard part is catching it. This is one of the reasons offensive models aren't really that scary and instead become adversarial models.
This should come as a surprise to absolutely no one who has been paying any attention at all. There’s a serious lack of ethics in the scientific, academic and medical industries.
No its the polar opposite. This what happens when public institutions have zero motive beyond "make papers". The INTERNAL research done by Big Pharma is usually accurate, cus they need to make money off this stuff. But the external ones are pure trash.
Most of the chronic diseases that affect the majority of people in advanced economies and drive 80% or more of health care costs, such as diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimers, and many cancers, are due to the garbage we eat. Pushing meds rather than real foods is the approach that most doctors take, unfortunately.
A cardiologist recently told me I needed a pace maker,All they had to do is stop giving me beta blockers.Your so called professionals are clueless.He never gave me a real reason why I needed them in the first place other than it was standard procedure.
And still, people worldwide are gaslit by doctors who blindly and solely trust in studies and papers instead of believing the lived experiences of their patients. But don't you DARE bring a suggestion of a diagnosis you googled or asked AI for!
This gives NO sources at all for the claims it is making! I do find the information they are conveying here fairly accurate as I am a researcher myself and have noticed this issue in the field. Nonetheless, if information is being shared then it should be verifiable
NYU really is on point. My son needed brain surgery, and his first doctor was basing what they wanted to for my son on research that his NYU surgeon said “seems dubious”. I took him to NYU for a second opinion. They removed 90% of the mass in his brain without affecting his memory center in the way the other doctor most likely would based on the dubious research they were basing their approach on.
I am a doctor. This is unbelievable and unacceptable. The responsibility for verification of the veracity of an article /journal can't be on the patients and their caregivers. An individual has enough research to do as it is just to be able to live a decent life. No to minimal education provided by schools on personal finance is just one example. Some articles are too complex even for experienced professionals in the very field to interpret. There should be some consequences for these unethical un-professionals with no sense of responsibility.
It is shocking. I’m an independent researcher, as the actual govern in Brasil do not support any research line. How can a research bias a study with long years of work and investment going against everything we study for? It just make my stomach tumble imagining that we have so many people suffering and being lied to. I will go deeper in this matter and study to get all info I can and debate about every paper I read. Probably will get killed in Brasil if I start, as we live in some kind of dictatorship right now, but I will do. If there is any other looking for the truth let’s make a team
Unfortunately, there's a lot of fraud all over the place. There's a significant lack of morale in many people. The two most common motivators are probably money and social status. If we look at our societies, the lack of those two things are quite crippling (having no money and having no friends), so to remedy this lack of morale, we need to try harder to make it so that people aren't lacking these things. Very little is actually done with those issues.
Wait, did really only those of us in the science field know about this for so long? We always told people that clinging to science as many non-scientists did was the same as forging a dogma of faith. It was always said that science is full of flaws, but that "science fanatic" crowd, who only knew science through popular news media and gave it the answer to everything, from what's real or important, that way of thinking is society's fault, not science's.
Moving forward, can we have a provision for pre-publication? Like you find a novel procedure or process, send it for prepublication and request for peer review (and replication) and after two or three confirmation, then it moves to real (respected) journal?
Medicine is BigBusiness. "Researchers" simply MUST publish to keep their cusshy jobs and are little more than paid agents of the big pharmaceutical companies.
This has become a big problem in the U.S. I have seen a lot of research coming out and professionals trying to make results fit certain political views
The irony! The video if Catherine is made by AI as well, but you're not disclaiming that? The amount of people thinking the video is real, is staggering.
Do you think football players have morals, when they throw themselves on the ground to deceive the referee? Do you think politicians have morals, when they spend millions just to find out what the opposition do in their private life? Do you think the media have morals, when they exaggerate, omit or lie through their teeth, to get viewings? The cesspool of people without morals is not just academia, academia is just a very small part of it.
If they'd make funding better and get rid of the "publish or perish" modus operandi, there might be more experiment repetition by different labs and less data fudging. It's hard to get funding for repeating others' experiments. Besides peer review, repeating others' research is one way you make sure the data holds up and helps combat bias and finds flaws in experiment & data collection.
they should also do an investigation about Covid related research especially those about vaccines....I'm sure there are a number of big multinational drug/med tech related corporations there which made tons of money on the pandemic
It’s so important to not get overly excited about a single or even a couple papers about something “revolutionary.” The more literature about it from different sources (and different monetary sources), the more you can trust a new discovery. If it sounds too good to be true, chances are it isn’t true or it’s not the full story.
Is anyone else bothered by those scratchy/crackling sounds when the guest is talking? I think the anchor is rubbing against his microphone unintentionally. Wish people would be more aware of this, because it makes listening excruciating to me.
My first question is; how much research is funded outside of private funding. in other words, what is the probability, I’ll finding a cure that makes no money?
I quickly became disillusioned with research when I was required to do it. My faculty members were merely eager to publish. I saw no practical use of their so-called contribution to knowledge. I stepped out of the farcical game. KeepSmiling ☺️🌺
This is why I stopped donating to medical research. Billions have been raised for cancer research over the past 50 years and chemo is still the standard. Doesn’t take Einstein to work out the money is going into pockets not research.
I systematically went through my own medical history, then that of my parents, grandparents, siblings, children and grandchild. I then looked for known causes of all problems, then commonality. In that way I was able to identify chronic inflammation as a likely cause. Having now tried various ways to control chronic inflammation I feel much better. For me, diet has been the key. I have been able to reverse diabetes and am back to normal. I walk now sometimes without my wheelie walker. My exercise bike is back out of the shed, dusted down and in use. I can touch my toes again. The first step is to take charge of your health yourself, and do the research on your family. The second step is researching what can be done now that the problem has been identified. The third step is to do it. Doctors know how to mitigate symptoms with prescriptions. They don't know causes, so cannot effect cures. Luckily, though, medical information is now readily available to everyone on the internet. Just be circumspect with sources. I actually found Wikipedia really useful. If you try this, then good luck. It worked for me.
What are you eating? Try the elimination diet of Beef, eggs, salt and water. See if you start to feel better once you get into ketosis. A lot of conditions are metabolic.
@@egg399. I agree with this. Cut almost all food out. Life is miserable but you slowly reintroduce stuff. It was like I had reach equilibrium with my digestive system.
The same can be true of religion, in which people will place their trust in a religious leader, only to find out that he told them lies, such as "the Holy Trinity", hellfire, immortality of the soul, etc.
Aim of research, conferences, patents in academia ❌Finding new information or developing hypotheses/theories or verifying claims ✔️Building your CV ✔️Getting funding for research projects ✔️Pressure from your institution/university ✔️Completing PhD ✔️Promotion to Associate Professor or Professor ✔️Applying to a new university
